My analysis: For me Bradman is a lock at #3 and Sobers would be your #6, so that probably leaves 2 to pick. From the numbers given it's between Lara, Richards and Ponting (especially given Ponting still has the ability to increase his numbers dramatically). But others have a case, Headley didn't really have enough Tests (due to the war) to show how good he was and Pollock was left hanging in 1970 just as he reached his peak. But are those 2 great enough to make the team? Their selection would be speculation - that they were better than their numbers show, or if given more opportunities they might have been the best. I don't think we can make those calls, but that's just my two cents.

Best middle order batsman who didn't make the final cut:
P.May - highest rating: 941 V Aus 1956. spent 33 of his 66 Tests (50.0%) rated above 850.
A case could be made that Peter May is the one of the most underrated cricketers ever from those numbers.

For bowlers, I've also included their highest ever batting rating to give an idea of batting ability. One thing that is noticeable is that old time bowlers don't fare well in the ratings. Syd Barnes has the highest ever rating, but most of the older bowlers fail to sustain a high class level of performance ie. staying at 850+ for a decent portion of their career. Perhaps modern cricket is more conducive to that, I'm not really sure.

My analysis: Geez, Murali all the way here - the juggernaut. But what if you don't appreciate his action? Too bad I say, he's a damn fine bowler, but who would be the 2nd spinner if needed? Warne is a legend, but his numbers don't really back up his reputation as one of the 5 cricketers of last century. O'Reilly's reputation suffers from not enough cricket. Underwood could be deadly on his day haha. O'Reilly should feel hard done by, but I'd probably go with Warne, he's a good slipper and decent batsman and has an aura about him that the team could benefit from if they needed to go with the 2nd spinner.

My analysis: While well loved bowlers, the rating system doesn't really fancy Lillee or Akram for some reason, especially Wasim. The 4 standouts from the numbers are Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath and Hadlee. I'd have Hadlee to give some quality batting at #8 and definitely McGrath from those bowling numbers as my #11. Toss up between Marshall and Ambrose for the #9 spot, maybe Marshall for the extra batting skill, with Murali following at #10.

My analysis:
Sobers is the standout, the only one of the three who could be genuinely selected as either a batsman or bowler. Imran was never a reliable batsman until right at the end of his career. Miller was better as a batsman than Imran, but not quite the bowler, but he still doesn't hold a candle to Sobers.

Very hard to rate due to there being no rating for glovework. There is no fool proof way to judge, but I have noted if the WK has ever been played just as a batsman, usually indicating that their keeping is not the best it could be. Just like all-rounders, not many keepers have ever been rated over 650. It is only in the modern game that players like Flower, Gilchrist, Stewart and Sangakkara have emerged.

My analysis:
Ames was a pioneer of WK/batsmen, but his batting never reached great heights. Flower didn't have a strong overall career, but he really flourished with the bat in his last few seasons, clearly better than Ames. As for keeping ability, who knows? But honestly, Mr A.C. Gilchrist, should be in the final group. His batting figures are far better than Ames and his career was more consistently brilliant than Flower (perhaps I'm being a little unfair to Flower given the situation in Zimbabwe forced him to end his career in difficult circumstances). Gilchrist is probably a better keeper as well. He has never been supplanted, is close to Healy's world record and is rarely noticed - always a good thing for a keeper.

wow..........great commitment shown to write such a long post. Where are the stats for Richard Hadlee and Shaun Pollock? Are you using them only as bowlers or as ARs?

And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

My analysis: For me Bradman is a lock at #3 and Sobers would be your #6, so that probably leaves 2 to pick. From the numbers given it's between Lara, Richards and Ponting (especially given Ponting still has the ability to increase his numbers dramatically). But others have a case, Headley didn't really have enough Tests (due to the war) to show how good he was and Pollock was left hanging in 1970 just as he reached his peak. But are those 2 great enough to make the team? Their selection would be speculation - that they were better than their numbers show, or if given more opportunities they might have been the best. I don't think we can make those calls, but that's just my two cents.

Best middle order batsman who didn't make the final cut:
P.May - highest rating: 941 V Aus 1956. spent 33 of his 66 Tests (50.0%) rated above 850.
A case could be made that Peter May is the one of the most underrated cricketers ever from those numbers.

For bowlers, I've also included their highest ever batting rating to give an idea of batting ability. One thing that is noticeable is that old time bowlers don't fare well in the ratings. Syd Barnes has the highest ever rating, but most of the older bowlers fail to sustain a high class level of performance ie. staying at 850+ for a decent portion of their career. Perhaps modern cricket is more conducive to that, I'm not really sure.

My analysis: Geez, Murali all the way here - the juggernaut. But what if you don't appreciate his action? Too bad I say, he's a damn fine bowler, but who would be the 2nd spinner if needed? Warne is a legend, but his numbers don't really back up his reputation as one of the 5 cricketers of last century. O'Reilly's reputation suffers from not enough cricket. Underwood could be deadly on his day haha. O'Reilly should feel hard done by, but I'd probably go with Warne, he's a good slipper and decent batsman and has an aura about him that the team could benefit from if they needed to go with the 2nd spinner.

My analysis: While well loved bowlers, the rating system doesn't really fancy Lillee or Akram for some reason, especially Wasim. The 4 standouts from the numbers are Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath and Hadlee. I'd have Hadlee to give some quality batting at #8 and definitely McGrath from those bowling numbers as my #11. Toss up between Marshall and Ambrose for the #9 spot, maybe Marshall for the extra batting skill, with Murali following at #10.

My analysis:
Sobers is the standout, the only one of the three who could be genuinely selected as either a batsman or bowler. Imran was never a reliable batsman until right at the end of his career. Miller was better as a batsman than Imran, but not quite the bowler, but he still doesn't hold a candle to Sobers.

Very hard to rate due to there being no rating for glovework. There is no fool proof way to judge, but I have noted if the WK has ever been played just as a batsman, usually indicating that their keeping is not the best it could be. Just like all-rounders, not many keepers have ever been rated over 650. It is only in the modern game that players like Flower, Gilchrist, Stewart and Sangakkara have emerged.

My analysis:
Ames was a pioneer of WK/batsmen, but his batting never reached great heights. Flower didn't have a strong overall career, but he really flourished with the bat in his last few seasons, clearly better than Ames. As for keeping ability, who knows? But honestly, Mr A.C. Gilchrist, should be in the final group. His batting figures are far better than Ames and his career was more consistently brilliant than Flower (perhaps I'm being a little unfair to Flower given the situation in Zimbabwe forced him to end his career in difficult circumstances). Gilchrist is probably a better keeper as well. He has never been supplanted, is close to Healy's world record and is rarely noticed - always a good thing for a keeper.